Khairlnji: Court proceedings on 21st July…. (Contd. 2)

31Jul08

The court again reassembles after lunch-break . Adv.Khan continues his arguments.
Adv.Khan: As to the corroboration of the evidence , the complainant can not be termed as the eye witness since  he has seen the incidence.Now, I will move to the 3rd stage of the crime i.e. the Disposal of the bodies or the destruction of the evidence.The body of Priyanka was found after a day of the incidence and that of the dead bodies of Surekah , Sudhir & Roshan were found on the second day of the incident. Thereafter , autopsy was done on the bodies . This is not a disputed fact.

(Adv.Khan then reads through the statement of  Dr.Avinash Shende who did the post mortem on the dead bodies)

The time of the death of Priyanka was 32-48 hrs . before the autopsy of the body and that of Surekha , Sudhir and Roshan was that of  16 to 24 hrs.before the autopsy. The cause of the death was due to intracranial injury caused by sharp edged weapon. Now, please go through the Exh.No. 86 that of Dileep Ukey. Here the dead bodies are not disputed nor their identities are disputed. Recovery of the dead bodies was done. Now, I will bring the court’s attention to the evidence given by the eye-witness. Hon.Supreme Court says that the testimony of single eye-witness is sufficient to convict the accused. Mukesh Pusam’s statements are corroborated by other facts too. The deposition of his statement can be  divided into two parts-
1st part- The actions and utterances of of the accused.
2nd part- Actual offence.
The utterances of the accused are corroborated by circumstances or ocular evidence.And it is sufficient to establish the fact.
Now, please go through the statement of Mukesh Pusam u/s 164 (Reads through the statement of Mukesh Pusam u/s 164) From this 3 facts arise

(1)   There was assembly of people around Bhotmange’s house.
(2)   The accused were shouting
(3)   The witness saw the accused beating, killing the victims and then gathering their dead bodies.

There is perfect corroboration of facts and witness is reliable. Even then the witness’s statement was recorded u/s 164. Why? There is the difference between the statements between 161, 162 and 164. Statements made to police  under 161 and 162  has less sanctity than the statement made u/s 164. The statement made u/s 164 is always in the preserved form. His statements u/s 164 are corroborated by his statements u/s 161 & 162 . Ocular evidence can bring about the conviction on its own provided it is reliable, truthful and  corroborative.There is no improvement in his testimony.It is improvement if he says the incident happened in the morning instead of evening.But the witness says no such things. Which law says that the statements made under 164 is not true ? This is especially true when Poice Officer feels to record it. This provision is isolated in such circumstances when the blacksheeps after giving the statement u/s 164 ,  handshakes with the accused and so in such cases punitive procedure is provided for such reversal or denial of statetement.
 That’s what I have to tell today before this court.
(The court is adjourned on 4:30 P.M. till the next day i.e. 22nd July)



No Responses Yet to “Khairlnji: Court proceedings on 21st July…. (Contd. 2)”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: